from the why-would-they-do-this? dept

On Monday, we broke the news of the House Judiciary Committee circulating a terrible bill that would make the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) much worse, rather than better. It would expand definitions and make it even easier for the Justice Department to go after people for harmless activity. In fact, even the part we originally thought might fix one of the worst parts of the CFAA actually makes it worse.

Now that the bill has been out a few days, various experts on the CFAA are scratching their heads about why the House Judiciary Committee is even bothering with this draft bill. As Orin Kerr notes, this seems to be a basic rehash of the DOJ's attempt 2 years ago to expand the CFAA. He suggests (and we agree) that the Judiciary Committee stop taking DOJ language from 2011 and start dealing in the present, and deal with the very real problems with the CFAA, and not just with a DOJ who wants more power.

They’re looking for feedback, so here is mine: Stop taking DOJ’s language from back in 2011 and packaging it as something new. Based on a quick read, it seems that the amendments for 1030 in the new draft are mostly copied from a bill that Senator Leahy offered (with substantial input from DOJ, as I understand it) back in November 2011. I criticized that language here. The new circulating draft also adopts the sentencing enhancements (minus mandatories) and the proposed 1030a that DOJ advocated in May 2011. I criticized that initial DOJ language here. (There’s also a breach notification provision in the new language, but I haven’t followed that issue closely; I don’t know if that proposal is also based on old language.)

[....] This language is really, really broad. If I read it correctly, the language would make it a felony to lie about your age on an online dating profile if you intended to contact someone online and ask them personal questions. It would make it a felony crime for anyone to violate the TOS on a government website. It would also make it a federal felony crime to violate TOS in the course of committing a very minor state misdemeanor. If there is a genuine argument for federal felony liability in these circumstances, I hope readers will enlighten me: I cannot understand what they are.

Of course, when we brought up similar examples in our original post, people said we were overreacting. Hmm. Meanwhile Paul Rosenzweig, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at Homeland Security is similarly stumped by the direction of the reform.

My quick review and reaction to this bill is that it seems to answer most of what the Department of Justice wants with very little for the internet online community in return. Most notably the bill would make violations of the CFAA predicate acts for a RICO criminal charge — what this means is that if you engage in just two instances of violating the CFAA, then you are engaged in a pattern of racketeering, with substantial criminal penalties and .. .since the criminal definitions translate directly to civil liability .. a very significant possibility of a “bet the company” civil suit. Not a move designed to foster innovation, I think.

Hopefully, the House Judiciary Committee goes back to the drawing board on this, and takes a closer look at things like Aaron's Law, which is being developed to cut back on the excesses of the CFAA, rather than expand them.

Of course, when we brought up similar examples in our original post, people said we were overreacting. Hmm.

You could have said the very same things as Kerr, but the difference is that he's open, human, and awesome--not to mention an expert in the field--and you're an extremist, zealous FUD-packer. Don't blame others when you've got self-imposed boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome. Have you ever considered slowing down, calming down, and not being so extreme? You might be surprised by the new-found respect you'd get. Rather than vying for the love of the lowest common denominator, step up your game a little. You're a smart guy, I know you can do it.

Re: Re: Re:

There is an idea of a Mike Masnick, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there.

Re: Re: Re:

Certainly classier than your usual M.O.

Care to address the actual topic at hand, or are you satisfied with your boringly repetitive ad-homs and evasion of a real discussion on how harmful the current CFAA is and this attempt to make it worse?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm still waiting for Mike to have a substantive discussion on the merits about why he thinks Swartz didn't do anything wrong. People with integrity and credibility, like Prof. Kerr, are willing to discuss that. Why not Mike? Hmmm.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're not going to get your way AJ. Ever.

And we're all laughing at you for your whining, petulant child behavior because we see right through it. Your sole purpose for being here is to just snipe at everyone, particular at Mike. You don't have a substantive argument to make, short of sniping indiscriminately.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As soon as someone thinks you're even capable of 'a substantive discussion' on any topic they will engage you in one and quickly discover that they've misjudged you. I'm speaking from multiple first hand experiences here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And an expected attempt to deflect the conversation away from the real topic. Mike won't take your bait when you've clearly shown your only reason for commenting is your bizarre obessesion for throwing insults and poor attempts to paint him into a corner with out of context answers.

Did the attempt work? :game show buzzer: No, it did not. But thanks for playing.

Again, I'll ask, do you want to have a discussion regarding how damaging the current CFAA is, and this attempt to make it worse?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I remember Mike writing article after article after article about what he thinks and believes about Aaron Swartz. If, after (not) reading all of them, you still don't know what he thinks, then it's your own fucking fault.

Re:

You do know that the little boy who cried wolf was about a kid who did it for attention and kicks when there weren't any wolves, right? It is not about a little boy that cried wolf cause the damn wolves kept coming and coming.

Pass this

As one of "We the People..." I'm throwing my suggestion in the basket.

The Defense of Rationality, Enlightenment, and Morality Act. (Yes its the DREAM Act)

Any Senator or Representative that has shown a well documented (print or video evidence reviewed by experts) lack of comprehension/ignorance of a particular topic, shall not be allowed to lobby/legislate for or against said topic until he/she shows marked improvement in the understanding of said topic as determined by expert review.

Re: Pass this

Re: Pass this

Most "lawmakers" admit they neither write nor read the laws that they vote upon whilst supposedly representing us, their constituents. In fact, most "laws" submitted these days are the product of subversive PACs like ALEC whose goals are very dissimilar to those of the general population. This is called a representative form of government, only problem is the majority of people are not being represented. Really good plan there, what could possibly go wrong.

Love it.

Abuse

It is things like this that makes me sad these days.

During the earlier days of the Internet many just saw it as a weird network filled with tech-heads and buttholes. Now not only do they realise how important the Internet is in the commercial and social sense when they can also strip out data like never before.

So you now have a vast array of Government agencies and more now rushing to carve out their own slice of the Internet to enhance their own power and control.

The DoJ now wants to be able to arrest almost anyone it seems but of course they would say it is only for the really bad people so don't worry about the little guys.

rather than scratch their heads just over the ridiculous changes proposed for the CFAA, the more important and worrying things are
a)how did these people ever get voted in to be Senators? the other choices must have been even more diabolical or they were forced out of the race
b) it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where these ridiculous changes have stemmed from (entertainment industries!), but having proof would be a help. anyone know when the various meetings took place and who attended?
c) when something like this happens, it is usually because the proposers have more skeletons in their closets, so what are they trying to hide that warrants such harsh punishments for transparency?

Who's stumped? It's more fascism. Can't you see the trend?

Let's see. -- Long argument (based on implications of the above snip) shortened: IF you wish freedom, FIRST place to start is with corporations. Facebook and Google are the front line of the war that The Rich through THEIR "gov't" are making on you.

Take that quote above to mean that you'll be bound by Facebook's TOS as enforced by federal attack dogs. Now put that together with the growing influence of Facebook as de facto log-in credentialer, which means essentially that most of everyday activity WILL eventually require using Facebook, and you can surely see the confluence of forces lead directly to Beyond Big Brother.

To say the least, don't follow those who don't know where this OBVIOUS road goes. Mike only wishes "Hopefully" that sanity will break out. Well, it won't: The Rich and THEIR gov't never stop committing crimes until they've ruined all.

Been said before but this has got to be one of the worst bills written. There can be no good coming from enforcing TOS or other hardware based encryption/protection(izm). On the face of such nonsense it the fact that TOS and EULA are such an abused part of contract law as to make written law a farce. Why would congress dilute written law with contract madness?

“We vote to become irrelevant and enforce everybody else's written law instead” Would a congressperson raise their hand and vote yes to that? On tech issues congress is in way over their heads and worse the people advising them don't know scat either. (Or worse special interest groups with axes to grind.) You don't have to be a lawyer or congressperson to see this as an open barn door.

I include EULA because almost everything is becoming a computer and this will be abused just like TOS is already. Just prohibit everyday use (common already) and a firm will never pay out for warranty returns. Better yet impose fines and fees for every little infraction/mistake.

Since the CFAA was a mangled (relying on other peoples TOS/EULA legalese is like so random) act to start its unlikely that a quick fix would help. -not surprised-

Its got to be a pride thing that congress never repeals law. Nobody's perfect.

Aaron's Law makes a good focal point. No way I could understand his pain and no way to grasp the apparent effrontery of the prosecution. My support.

Scratching Heads

"...various experts on the CFAA are scratching their heads about why the House Judiciary Committee is even bothering with this draft bill."

There is nothing to scratch, you scratch with the misconception that they are listening to you, that they care what you think. They don't care, and any request for input is merely perfunctory. They are worried about their position and power, how it was exposed by online activism, and how they look to those who they think really matters - moneyed interest. They patently will do anything to destroy you so they can viably subsist in the current corrupt system, that is the bottom line. Stop scratching your heads and start using them - stop living in a dream world of what has been presented to you via propaganda, and act accordingly.